logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.05.22 2018가합100990
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) 10,000,000 won against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) Eul corporation and 201

8.3.13. From 13.

Reasons

Basic facts and counterclaims are also viewed as the principal lawsuit and counterclaims.

On December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) with a contract amount of KRW 200,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the Pool E-S-28 2BM, Lao 1ST, and the instant machinery (hereinafter referred to as “instant machinery”), which is a device that automatically connects the Defendant company and the lower-ranking persons, and the Defendant C, as the substantial representative of the Defendant Company, jointly and severally guaranteed the above product payment liability.

On December 28, 2017, Defendant Company paid KRW 10,000,00 to the Plaintiff the instant down payment, and the Plaintiff supplied the instant machinery to the Defendant Company on January 10, 2018.

On January 25, 2018, Defendant Company sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that the instant contract will be rescinded, and the said certificate reached the Plaintiff around that time.

[Ground of recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings] The plaintiff's assertion by the party to the judgment as to the claim of main lawsuit does not pay KRW 210,000,000 (including value-added tax) for the machinery of this case even though the machinery of this case was installed in the defendant company under the contract of this case.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the remaining amount of the instant machine 210,000,000 won and damages for delay against the Defendants.

The machinery of this case manufactured and installed by the plaintiff by the plaintiff of the defendants is less than the product warranty speed agreed by the plaintiff, and the design and structural defect of the plaintiff is to supplement part of the work process, and safety problems are also problematic. Thus, it is impossible to supplement or repair the above defects and to have the original agreed performance.

The Defendant Company rescinded the instant contract by serving a notice of cancellation as of January 25, 2018 or a written document as of July 19, 2018. The instant contract is the Defendant.

arrow